http://batesmotel.8m.com/
I always thought the moon landings were fake 0_o
Printable View
http://batesmotel.8m.com/
I always thought the moon landings were fake 0_o
omg... thats bullshit, the reflect thing on that guys helmet is obviosly their landing thing.
and their talking about sun being the only light source. They OBVIOSLY had flashlights of sum kind, and the landing thing might be reflecting the light of sun as it is white. And
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa3.gif
The suits of those guys are white so, they OBVISOUSLY reflect the light coming from the sun to the front of that guy. (the photographers white suit reflects the light of the sun (coming from behind the guy that is being photographed) to his frontQuote:
If you will look at area B you will notice a shadow cast across Buzz Aldrin's space suit. Once again, if the Sun is the only light source used on the moon, this shadow would have been MUCH darker.
uh oh they had crappy cameras at that time, and some old cameras created black things like that when they are not focused(whatever word u want to use) correctly.Quote:
Looking at area C you will notice that the surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.
how about that being the landing thing?Quote:
Looking at area D you can plainly see some type of structure reflected through Aldrins helmet. I do not know what it is, but it is there.
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa2.gif
well that guy on the left, is standing slightly higher than the guy on the right. And the Shadow of the guy on left is cast upon the the leveling ground so obviosly it appears shorter from the angle of that pic. :huh:Quote:
On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa4.gif
err... the lunar module is on the ground, like 2-3 feet away from that shadow. so of course it is clearly defined. :huh:Quote:
In this picture, taken from the LEM, you can see at least two abnormalities. In section E you see an abnormal shadow on the moon's surface. NASA claims that this shadow is the shadow cast by the Lunar Module, but on earth, even when aircraft is flying low to the ground, it does not produce such a clearly defined shadow.
Wow that didnt kick ass at all, because the stars contrast too much to the ground of moon, no camera of that time could have captured the stars on the pic. (ive seen a document about these "fakes" ) AND that black could NOT be sky because the angle the camera is angled to it is obviosly faded to black. they had crappy cameras at that time, and some old cameras created black things like that when they are not focused correctly.Quote:
OK, here's the kicker... if you will look at section 3 you will notice there are no stars in the sky. In fact, you will never see any stars in any NASA Moon photographs, or hear an astronaut mention anything about the glorious stars that are visible when out of the earths atmosphere.
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa7.gif
yeah well that flag doesnt look real at all, But maybe nasa wanted to have the us flag to be better visibly cuz without the touch-up it wouldnt have been visible at all. And again the stars contrast too much for the cameraQuote:
if you look in areas 6 and J , you will again see no stars. In area K you will notice that one side of the LEM in covered in shadow, but somehow the symbol of the US flag in illuminated. This very well could have been a touch up job.
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa8.gif
if u look at the guy in the visor(the standing one, its obviosly a pic from his camera) he standind feets away, so that even the main guys feet might have been in the original photo, but it was cropped to that.Quote:
This is a picture of Alan Bean holding up a Special Environmental Examiner Container. This picture was taken off a camera that was strapped to Conrad's chest. If the camera was attached to Conrad's chest, the top of Bean's helmet L should not be in this picture.
maybe they had some stationary light-things around them where they gathered sum crap from the moon. (=multiple light sources)Quote:
All of the shadows reflected in Bean's visor M are going off in separate directions, not in parallel lines like they should be.
no shit?Quote:
If you will look at the Environmental sampler that Al Bean is holding, N , The reflection is coming from a light source other than the sun, but it is possible that light is being reflected off the space suit.
could that be the hand of the guy that took that photo? as it is on their chest, the camera, and if u look at the reflection his left(right in the reflection) arm looks like it is infront of the chest(=camera)Quote:
There is a strange anomaly in the sky 7 , It is yet to be determined what that might be.
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa9.gif
could also be done with enough weight(yes i know theres no gravity in the moon but those things had these cool thruster thingys to keep em on the ground :huh:Quote:
In our last picture, I would like to direct your attention to the circled portion of the screen. These Lunar Rover tracks are quite well defined, don't you agree? Well, the fact is, you need a mixture of a compound, and water, to make such defined lines. I don't know if that idea is so convincing, but I assure you, this next one is.
that guy seriously thinks that that c looks real? if u look at the pic, a little bit to the left u will see a line, just like the c. And that line does not look like its on the ground does it?Quote:
If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa10.gif
this could also be a later-on manipulation, or an error caused by too much contrast or anything :huh:Quote:
Here is a portion of the previous picture, blown up. Take a look at the cross hairs that appear on the picture. These hairs appear on EVERY lunar picture. These cross hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film, supposedly. If you take a look at the cross hair on the left, this cross hair was placed behind the lunar rover, you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs.
on with the facts :huh:
those cameras look like their films are exposed to the heat stuff and everything?Quote:
An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.
Didnt most of those guys die later on to cancer? :huh:Quote:
About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.
Then How come stuff on the orbit doesnt get teared to pieces? :huh:Quote:
There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.
contrast...Quote:
If you look at the pictures/video of people on the moon, you will never see more than 3 stars.
well maybe there was solid rock underneath it, im pretty sure that nasa isnt that stupid that it lands their lunar stuff on a sand pile?Quote:
When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched.
or whatever :huh:
edit: why wont my quotes work?
yeah i know about this. my friend told me the site. and the landing on the moon really does look fake
There are WAY better sites than that. That site sucks on this subject, because it get's cocky at the bottom of the page and accuses NASA of pocketing money.
I tried to talk to some people about this and they come back with, So you think they faked Columbia? :(
I dont know for sure myself, but I heard that moon doesnt have any wind? So how the flag would be in that position?
You guys seen Rammstein - America video? :)
uh oh it doesnt have any wind cuz theres no atmosphere>> the trails that armstrong and those other guys should still be there if they really went there :huh:
and the flag is in position with an extra stick on the top of the flag
well i am parinoid an i think everything is fake. or messed up in one way or another.
Srry this was a dblpost.
NASA wouldn't let their film be exposed to these extreme temperatures.Quote:
An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.
Even with the technology of the time, when you know to prepare for radiation it's usually a lot easier then most people would expect.Quote:
About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.
Even at a high velocity, they're too small to even dent the ship's hull.Quote:
There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.
Heard about this years ago and there are some weird things going on in the pictures - although I really do believe they landed on there. Why would they fake that... it would be uncovered very quickly by a leak.
Quote:
Originally posted by tacoX@Jul 3 2005, 05:20 AM
Heard about this years ago and there are some weird things going on in the pictures - although I really do believe they landed on there. Why would they fake that... it would be uncovered very quickly by a leak.
[snapback]72778[/snapback]
They Would Fake It Because At The Time They Were In A Race With Russia And That Was Far More Important Than Worrying About Leaks ..Personally Im Undecided About Real Or Fake..The Thing Is Why Has There Been No Effort Made To Return To The Moon?
They have returned to the moon many times. Now there's nothing really new to see there... They aren't going to spend millions and maybe even billions of dollars to put some more people up there if all they're going to do is jump around and play golf. At the moment they've been focusing on using remote transmission technology along with new space-craft to learn more about the other plants in our solar system, and maybe even beyond. Nothing's in the news anymore though. Now it's filled with "this music star raped little kids", and "this whore let he breast show in the superbowl", or "this rich dumb slut's sex tape has gotten loose to the public". Fuckin pathetic.Quote:
Originally posted by *Peng*@Jul 3 2005, 08:57 AM
They Would Fake It Because At The Time They Were In A Race With Russia And That Was Far More Important Than Worrying About Leaks ..Personally Im Undecided About Real Or Fake..The Thing Is Why Has There Been No Effort Made To Return To The Moon?
[snapback]72902[/snapback]
On another note, NASA, along with most agencies dedicated to science are once again extremely under-funded by the US government.
I dont have a link right now, but theres a move showing the lem returning back to the module. Im really tired right now so I wont post very much, but in the vacum of space, things like combustion, etc dont occur as they would on earth. All but 1 of the movies show the lem return to the module without any flame/exhaust, as it should, but there is one which shows it returning with exhaust. (flame and all, meaning the film was clearly faked).
A bit more to what happened, people who started to accuse the government of faking the landings said, "OMG THE MOON LANDINGS WERE FAKED THERE IS NO CRATER MARK FROM THE TAKE OFF OF THE LANDER!!". They were given back the reply from Nasa that in the vacum space there would not be flame/exhaust so that meant their would be no crater and their "proof" was thrown out. Then someone noticed in one movie there was a flame.
Aswell if you look around on the fakings of Appolo 13, its not hard to see that was faked too. Like when they were supposidly far from Earths atmosphere, near the moon, yet out the window the scene was not black, but a glowing blue, which would indicate they were much closer to Earth then they had said. Even to make it more obvious there appears to be two earths, heh im to tired to remember it all. Ill post more 2morrow. gn
Oh yeah and hey didnt return many times, it was only 7 times they tried, and supposidly 6 times they actually landed. A bit on the golf part,heheQuote:
Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
Great topic :D
Idiotic topic if you ask me. arm chair theorists about such conspiricy issues including the shooting of JFK, Roswell, reds under the bed, etc etc etc....
What makes it worse is that the media gives it press because it gets ratings even though its so utterly stupid. as the media have to cater to the lowest common denominator, they make it all simple and use glib lines. also they love to make it sound real. just like the articles about ghosts, atsrology, tarot cards, crossing over and other such nonsense.
If all you can do is search for sites that publish such claims, then you will continue to be hoodwinked by such claims. there is plenty of information out there about the facts and plenty of sites that dispute these claims qith a scientific basis. unfortunatly the arm chair critics discount these disputs.
The most frustrating thing is the inibility of people to apply logical reasoning and stop being subjective.
Then again it makes people rich... I bet they're pretty thankfull of the averagely low intelligence of the American public :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by MetalSkin@Jul 4 2005, 10:29 PM
Idiotic topic if you ask me. arm chair theorists about such conspiricy issues including the shooting of JFK, Roswell, reds under the bed, etc etc etc....
What makes it worse is that the media gives it press because it gets ratings even though its so utterly stupid.* as the media have to cater to the lowest common denominator, they make it all simple and use glib lines.* also they love to make it sound real.* just like the articles about ghosts, atsrology, tarot cards, crossing over and other such nonsense.
If all you can do is search for sites that publish such claims, then you will continue to be hoodwinked by such claims.* there is plenty of information out there about the facts and plenty of sites that dispute these claims qith a scientific basis.* unfortunatly the arm chair critics discount these disputs.
The most frustrating thing is the inibility of people to apply logical reasoning and stop being subjective.
[snapback]73609[/snapback]
oh yes, without a doubt. just have a gander at infomertials...
of course there are the movies that Hollywood make that 'are based on real events', for example that sub movie where americans steal a U-Boat in world war II. A lot of people world wide now beleive it was the americans when in fact is was he British.
Its funny how people beleive something because its on TV, must be tied to beleiving what you see.
Totally Agree Metalskin..Seems Nowdays If Its Hollywood Its Gotta Be Tru.. Like In Titanic Where The Officer Fires At The Passengers ..Never Happened And The Guy They Portrayed Doing It Actually Saved Loads Of People..Fortunately The Film Company Had To Apologise N Compensate The Family And Town He Came From
